From the Defence and Freedom blog:
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetically sad.
That's interesting.Originally Posted by bourbon
Now why don't those smart guys in the USG guild an open database containing this information on all US politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats?
Make this invasion of privacy more palatable by setting the example themselves.
In a democracy you get the government you deserve.
You got to hand it to Fuchs...
From the Defence and Freedom blog:
This would be hilarious if it were not so pathetically sad.
OK, yes then all cab drivers in NY are secrets service and every cleaning staff also... Becomes very expensive. And quite profitable for the cleaners who get backchich by all representatives of all countries in the UN building...
My point was rather on the fact that it was so obvious that everyone is "spying" everyone in that building that I do not get how it becomes a revelation and a hot stuff.
And getting intel in going to a party, dinner or cocktail, isn't it part of the diplomats job?
And yes, people deliberately let things "slip" at a dinner as part of a disinformation campaign which these idiots duly report back to State... but does this puerile game really extend to lifting saliva samples and (gasp) semen samples?And getting intel in going to a party, dinner or cocktail, isn't it part of the diplomats job?
You need vast databases for comparison and the information is much easier to come by reading the official bio, doing some small talk and doing some phone calls.
Illegitimate offspring, for example.
We've had them from the US and Canada, now for an Aussie idiot...
From the Australian: WikiLeaks no security risk: Smith
First:
thenDefence Minister Stephen Smith said yesterday the taskforce had examined all of the WikiLeaks cables on Iraq and concluded they had not damaged the national interest.
So its a sort of preemptive prosecution being advocated?Asked why WikiLeaks and its co-founder, Mr Assange, should be prosecuted if the leaks posed no threat, Mr Smith said future material could threaten Australia's national security.
You can't make this stuff up...
It's the insurance file that would create a different situation.
George Friedman has a pretty good analysis of some of the information from the leaks over at STRATFOR
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101...0df0d06670a7c4
The people who are going the most gaga over some of the information from the cables haven't really been paying attention or clearly don't understand how the international system operates.
Last edited by Old Eagle; 12-14-2010 at 11:17 PM.
The problem with the insurance file is the use of it as has been done. Holding a secret hammer supposedly over the head of everybody is ironically exactly what Wikileaks is supposed to be fighting. The power of hiding information. That position and several other ironic statements from the relatively immature group running Wikileaks is more frightful than the bumbling by national governments.
There are various groups who have fought the issues of secrecy in government used to abuse populations for a long time. Wikileaks has not risen to that occasion, nor strengthened the position of the community, nor worked to better society. There is to much cause celebre' for my taste.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Slowly they are waking up...
Remember you heard it first here while even these guys were chewing this over...
WikiLeaks prosecution ‘will set a dangerous precedent’
The biggest threat to the US is from its government's self inflicted wounds.Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism faculty and officers tell President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that “while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment” and that “as a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.”
-----
Here is another view from the Spectator:
The Wikileaks Double Standard
Last edited by JMA; 12-15-2010 at 07:13 AM.
They would be crazy if they did not have such a plan. In the old days people used to lodge an envelope with their attorney with the instructions "Open in the event of my death". And of course you never know what those crazy people in the CIA might have been planning.
Heh. That may be true
but we could wait until the USG actually pulls the trigger rather than reacting to the media frenzy talking about the caliber of the weapon, the size of the hole and the amount and type of blood that might, just might appear...
Last edited by Ken White; 12-15-2010 at 03:52 PM.
This guy must be really fun in a crowded bar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-achtung.htmlAn online dating profile created by Julian Assange has been unearthed, disclosing that the WikiLeaks editor sought "spirited, erotic" women "from countries that have sustained political turmoil".
'I am danger, achtung' = toolbag.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
While I agree with Friedman's analysis of the content of the materials leaked, I think he soft-pedals the ramifications. The justice department is going to spend millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, to unravel the actions to build a case that involved the release of relatively useless information. New rules and regulations to protect relatively useless information will be created, which will mean increased bureaucratic reach and size. All of this is on behalf of an effort to criminalize behavior down to the smallest detail that in reality creates little harm. It makes me very uncomfortable. It makes me very uncomfortable that the "wonks" don't seem troubled by this. I suppose the point is that the prestige of such people is enhanced by their proximity and reach into the highest echelons of the continuously expanding power of the state and its bureaucracies.
On the other hand, I did quite enjoy the article in the Sunday Post Outlook section that argued for a shift to laws that are self-destructing.
I think the stables need to be mucked out, too much has been accumulating for too long, and we take too many things for granted. So, the law that was written for Ellsberg, because of the material he passed along that eventually came to be known as the Pentagon Papers -- and these really were valuable historical materials, they are wildly fascinating, a truly insightful view into the processes at the topmost levels -- does not seem to fit the "Lite" version that Manning has created.
Jill
Well, a few things occurred to me about the file. First, who wins if it's disclosed? Not the good people for sure. The decline in value of the information to bad guys is a following trend to release & reaction, and is always going to lag in any sequence of exposure. Second, as the information is disclosed it becomes less valuable, and more of an action that might carry the freight of liability. Personally I was sort of shocked that the group did this because it's so manifestly unethical. It was also pretty egoistic, childish, & intellectually immature.
If you check on statements made by Manning in published chats, that data didn't all move at once. It also doesn't seem like it was necessarily targeted by him alone. There are real indications of collaboration in the public record that the press, and of course the Assange gang, would much rather have everyone ignore. This the same way that they would have people ignore the fact that they made no effort to transfer their wikileaks.org domain to another DNS provider after it was shut off. Instead, attacks coming from other countries than the US (hello Thailand) were blamed on the US, and this was used as a pretext for mirroring and dispersal of the material.
I don't like what this group has done one bit. I'm not happy with the effects, or the distractions that it's causing. I'm biased though, it's difficult to watch someone who I've known for two decades attack my country and throw their life away on a deluded crusade that was always destined to do more harm than good.
a) I don't get what you're writing about at the beginning of the quote. It sounds just meaningless to me.
b) To call a non-profit org a "gang" is "opinionated" at the very least. Ad hominem.
c) Their strategy for keeping the material accessible was to establish mirror sites, not to try to keep the domain accessible all the time.
d) Only noobs commit online crimes that can be traced tot heir location. A CIA front (or a U.S.-based hacker) can easily use foreign computers as a front - the technical origin of DDoS attacks is irrelevant.
Go look at the Stratfor article listed elsewhere in this thread, it discusses the implications about how the information made its way to the public from the source. My point, which that article discusses thankfully, is that there is evidence of collaboration in the public record already. As to what to make of that collaboration between Manning & Wikileaks members, well I'm not sure what to make of it. After I posted what I did & went to the article I found it discussed that subject in a pretty clear way, & I found that helpful.
As to your point b; I meant that to be a derogatory statement, but also descriptive. There's less coherence (in part by design) in the organization, and that's got some real downsides to their decision making process, as well as the health of the organization. The splinter that resulted in the creation of the openleaks group is illustrative of the problems they've had with the organization. I'm entitled to make Ad hominem arguments in this situation because I've known the man for decades to be clear about it. He doesn't get a pass on getting called out just because vast multitudes in an unsophisticated audience have bought into his line of claptrap and want to give him a pass on very bad behavior that's highly influenced by his unstable personal biases.
I don't argue with your point c at all. What I was attempting to point out is that the reason for the strategic implementation was not honestly presented.
You point d doesn't stand the test of Occam's Razor very well. The attacks that succeeded were a not very sophisticated DDoS on DNS from countries that were not the US. Well, it happens that they came from more than one country with prior grudges against Wikileaks too. Further the attacks were not all of the same types, the DNS ones were just those that had an effect they couldn't control. Yes, the US could have staged the attacks from elsewhere, but that certainly implies a huge degree of sophistication to do something stupid.
At last... some sense out of Australia... IMHO
The Bogus Assange Rape Case
andOne woman said she had consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act. She hosted a party for him the next evening. A few days later, Assange had sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct was nonconsensual.
Shame on Sweden!Put another way, if Assange were any other guy, he would not be sitting in a British jail and there would have been no international manhunt, no matter how many times his condom broke during sex.
That would be about as sophisticated as me calling an old pal of myself and transferring 1,000 bucks to his Paypal account for a DDoS attack from a country of my choice on an IP of my choice tomorrow. It would take me about half an hour (because I lost his phone number).
Yes, well there are a lot of potential approaches to the problem that have thus far not been implemented, and there's little sense in overlooking the obvious just because it's a convenience to the narrative. I'm not willing to discount the ire of other nations than the US to Wikileaks activities. Just because the vast pool of media vomits out allegations and whirls them around some before they succumb to entropy doesn't make them true. There's data out about the attack sources. Rather than treat the prior speculation as fact, I prefer the data. My opinions are based on that & history. It's arguable that people in the attacking states were left in as frustrating situation as the US (and other nations) have found themselves in more recently. They easily might see this as an opportunity to act in ways they'd declined to in the past, and there's some likelyhood that at least some of those people would be just amongst a disgruntled citizenry rather than state sponsored.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks